>> for generations toy companies made tiny replicas that the weapons that our military uses in battle. add this one, a die cast, scale replica of an rq-1 predator drone hilike the one used in operations overseas, taking out terrorists from time to time. those weapons not without controversy, but some critics of the drone program have taken to the amazon customer review section of the toy to post a slew of sarcastic comments. we'll let you decide if they are helpful or not. they don't like the drone program so they're protesting the toy. >> the toy. we'll have to log on to the site and read some of the comments. all right, good to have you here. >> good to be here today, enjoyed it, a very busy day, lots going on. >> thank you for joining us, america live starts right now. >> bye. >> . >> fox news alert on the drama

in the death of four americans in libya as secretary of state hillary clinton moves from tough questions in the senate to what may be an even more contentious afternoon in the house, set to begin in under one hour right here. welcome to "america live," i'm megyn kelly. hours ago mrs. clinton testified before the senate foreign relations committee more than four months after the terror attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that killed four americans including u.s. ambassador chris stevens. at the top of the next hour, it's the house's turn and we may hear still more fireworks there. like this response from secretary clinton earlier to a suggestion that the administration misrepresented the real cause of this attack. >> we were misled there were supposedlyrotests and something sprang out of that and that was easily ascertained that was not the fact and the american people could have known in days and they didn't know that. >> with all due respect the fact is we had four dead

americans, was it because of a protest or guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some americans. what difference, it at this point, does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. people were trying in real-time to get to the best information. the ic has a process, i understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out, but you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards, as to why these militants decided they did it, than to find them and bring them to justice. >> megyn: our chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge is live at the state department and on this from the very he beginning. let me start with this, a remarkable thing. i remember you coming on fox news and breaking the news that there was no protest. there was no protest in benghazi after the administration had been telling us for a week that

there was. and now, you know, confronted directly with that fact, mrs. clinton's answer is, what does it matter? they seem to think it mattered when you reported it. >> well, we did report on september 17th on your broadcast, megyn, first that there was no demonstration outside the consulate when the attack happened. and that was part of what we now know was a significant body of evidence that undercut the administration's narrative that somehow this anti-islam video was to blame. if there were two themes that jumped out at me this morning from secretary clinton's testimony, is her claim that she did not personally review the security requests from libya, nor did she deny any of them and it was simply this fog of war which led the administration to not have a clear picture of what happened in that consulate, but our reporting shows that there was ample evidence that the intelligence community believed this was in fact a coordinated attack. that was known to the cia within 24 hours of the attack,

the head of the house intelligence committee mike rogers told fox news the day after the attack it was a coordinated commando style attack. a scrubbing of the social media in benghazi showed the only references to the anti-islam video came one day after the benghazi assault and another critical moment this morning was when secretary clinton was asked, why she chose not to interview her own people, the diplomatic security agents at this benghazi consulate because they would know firsthand what it happened. and she said she chose not to because she didn't want any imperception that they were interfering in the investigation. this was not accepted by at least two senior republicans. those interviews were key. those diplomatic security agents on 9/14 three days after the attack told the fbi there was no demonstration, this undercut the administration's false narrative that there was an anti-islam video to blame and

this came two days before susan rice's statements on the sunday talk shows, also today, a leading republican said, given mrs. clinton's performance, having not reviewed these requests and these warnings that he would have fired her. here is rand paul. >> i'm glad that you're accepting responsibility, i think that ultimately with your leaving you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and i really mean that. had i been president at the time, and i found that you did not read the cables from benghazi, did you not read the cables from ambassador stephens, i would have relieved you of your post. >> one thing to listen for at house foreign affairs, megyn, is the parsing of the language, what we heard from mrs. clinton al-qaeda core may be decimated, the traditional al-qaeda leadership with bin laden's death, but in fact, concedes that the taste or flavor of al-qaeda, al-qaeda 2.0 what we're seeing in north

africa is indeed on the rise is now a threat to u.s. national security. >> megyn: our viewers may not remember, but i remember this, you were breaking all of this news on this story about how the administration story was really falling apart, it just wasn't what it was first put out to be. and you had considerable pushback on your reporting and as a turns out, what you said, what you reported was right. their original story was wrong, and the answer today seems to be, who cares? well, we're going to talk about that coming up, whether people should care and why this does matter. katherine, thanks so much. >> you're welcome. >> megyn: well, again, in less than an hour, secretary of state hillary clinton will face house lawmakers and their questions over the benghazi attack and we expect this hearing may get even more heated than what we witnessed in the senate. there have been several vocal house members demanding answers on benghazi from the beginning and were very dismayed they didn't get to speak with hillary clinton

earlier and they have have their chance in less than an hour and we'll watch it live here. new developments on a dramatic showdown in the united states senate na could be be a game changer for republicans. less than 48 hours after the president gave an inaugural address calling for several controversial policy goals, the democratic leader of the u.s. senate gives republicans an ultimatum. either agree with us to reform the senate rules now to make it tougher for the minority, that is the republicans, to filibuster, or democrats will do it alone. now, the filibuster is one of the few tools the minority has in its arsenal that gives it a real voice during crucial debates. so why would the republicans agree to curtail that right and what does it mean if harry reid decides to do it on his own with his own party. chris stirewalt is digital editor and host of power play on foxnews.com. the filibuster, normally to get something approved in the senate you have to have 51

votes, but in order to sort of get the votes going you need 60 votes and the filibuster is something the republicans use to stop that from ever happening, that deprive the party in power of the 60 votes they need and harry reid doesn't like it. now, when he was in the the minority, he felt a little differently, chris, but now he's on this campaign to seriously curtail the filibuster rights of the minority? >> well, that's for sure. and the calls have grown and grown among democrats for something it lessen the power of the minority to block legislation, basically what the filibuster does now is it prevents debate from ending on something and you can't move to the vote and as you say, once you get to the vote then you need a simple majority. if you can't close debate you can't ever get to the vote and becomes a moot point. now, republicans have used this and democrats used it to pretty good fact and the republicans at the senate, too. >> all the time. >> all the time. and it's to the majority, it's

been so since the mid '70s, how the senate operated. and things are more dysfunctional now than before just like everything in washington, but the truth is the senate had trouble moving large controversial legislation and we think back to the president's health care law, his health insurance entitlement program, they had to do that on a budget reconciliation vote, basically a procedural end around to avoid the 60 vote threshold and it's stuck in the craw of a lot of liberals. they think now though, they have enough leverage with this threat against the minority that says either give up-- either voluntarily lessen your own power, agree to lessen your own power or we'll take it away with what's called the nuclear option. >> i just, i don't understand. i mean, i see why harry reid wants that now, the democrats want that now that they're in power, but look at our history. they won't stay in power forever. they just won't. the republicans will come back at some point and regain control of that chamber, and then what? how are the liberals going to feel if we wind up with a

republican president, a republican senate and a republican house and there are, you know, seriously curtailed minority voting rights in the senate and shut out. >> all that matters to the obama democrats is the next 18 months, the strategy is break the back of the republican majority in the house and divide and conquer the republicans so they can't block things and president can get his larger initiatives through, so he can have more tax increases, that he can do more stimulus spending, that he can do gun control, a larger amnesty program for illegal immigrants, gay marriage, who knows? but he has a big bold agenda that he talked about, including global warming that couldn't get through. couldn't get 60 votes in the senate and remember this, this is the most important part of all of it. if the president can't pass the controversial legislation through his own fellow democrats in the senate and moderates and those in states that are red, facing reelection, he can't ever pressure the house, because if

he can't move it it out of the sna you can't pressure the house, that's what this comes down to is being able to break the back of the republican majority in the house. >> megyn: we shall see. the republican are said to be least talking with harry reid could be a bipartisan agreement to curtail the filibuster, but the republicans say the only way they could do that is if they significantly improve their ability to put amendments on these bills which they've also been stopped from doing by harry reid. so, it's a big deal. we'll watch it, chris, thanks. >> you bet. >> megyn: well, today we are hearing about what could be a significant change to the academic standards in the washington d.c. school system. you're not going to believe this. it's shining a new light on the controversial students coming up short. and apparently social studies apparently they didn't feel they need that anymore. we'll talk about it. a gruesome murder mystery in the city of brotherly love as the body this have bright young doctor is disdiscovered,

bound and burned in the basement of her own home. and one of the most powerful politicians in the country is firing a warning shot in america's gun debate as president bill clinton warns democrats about the potential dangers of mocking second amendment supporters. . >> there will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical allout assault on liberty. not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. [ man ] i've been out there most of my life.

you name it...i've hooked it. but there's one... one that's always eluded me. thought i had it in the blizzard of '93. ha! never even came close. sometimes, i actually think it's mocking me. [ engine revs ] what?! quattro!!!!! ♪

progress-oh! -oh! -oh! oh! oh! ♪ wh do you know? oh! ♪ bacon? -oh! -oh! oh! [ female announcer ] with 40 delicious progresso soups at 100 calories or less, there are plenty of reasons people are saying "progress-oh!" share your story for a chance to win a progress-oh! makeover in hollywood. go to facebook.com/progresso to enter. i wish my patients could see what i see. ♪ that over time, having high cholesterol and any of these risk factors can put them at increased risk for plaque buildup inheir arteries. so it's even more important to lower their cholesterol, and that's why, when diet and exercise alonaren't enough, i prescribe crestor.

in a clinical trial versus lipitor, crestor got more high-risk patients' bad cholesterol to a goal of under 100. [ female announcer ] crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. tell your doctor about other medicines yore taking. ll your doctoright away if you have muscle pain or weakness, feel unusually tired, have loss of appetite, upper belly pain, dark urine or yellowing of skin or eyes. these could be signs of rare but serious side effects. ♪ is your cholesterol at goal? talk to youdoctor about crestor. [ femalannouncer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. >> well, there's a growing number of sheriffs across this country warn they may not enforce new gun rules if they are passed. former president bill clinton is sharing a warning for democrats about the political dangers of mocking second

amendment supporters and it appears our former president may not exactly be shoulder to shoulder with our current president on this issue. joining me now, lars larson a second amendment, and sally kohn. bill clinton stands up and says do not patronize the passionate support of them, a lot of people live in the world of people supporting these things, i know because i come from this are world. lars, you and i talked about this, how in the big cities there's a different perception of guns than there is in the hardland of america and many other places and big cities thought to be held in urban cities and think of guns that many things could be use today hurt you and your family. in the sort of heartland of america, thought as something to protect you and your family, may be in the family

for generations. >> in the big cities, people think that if you have a gun, you can protect yourself from criminals. an example, a lady who owned a pistol illegally and protected her when somebody assaulted her she shot the man and they arrested the lady for having the gun while the assaulter ran away. and as for patronizing, bill clinton tells his fellow democrats don't patronize? let me get this straight, the morning hick from arkansas is warning democrats. >> megyn: no you did not say that. >> and dumb hicks don't want to be relieved of their guns so be careful what you say to them. this guy is as patronizing as the day is long. >> megyn: you can't agree with him when he's on your side? >> he tells them don't tell them because they'll take your seat in congress, i think is accurate. it's patronizing because he says he used to be a hick from arkansas, but he's worldly and understands all this.

he's right about the warning, but couching it in these terms, americans like their liberties, and all they've got is hunting and fishing or in a place without much police presence or listening to this stuff so long they believe it all. it doesn't sound like he's squared up with president obama on this, because i'll leave you with one other quote. he said, he let the democratics with a warning they may be defeated if they choose to stand with president obama. and don't be self-congratulatory how brave you are, the only brave ones are the ones mo will lose their jobs if they vote with you. >> the president was speaking off the did you have. i heard the warning differently. we know the kinds of common sense been violence prevention laws and regulations that the president's proposing are in fact not only supported by a majority of americans, but

supported by a majority of gun owners and incidentally, a majority, strong majority of nra members as well. i think president clinton was simply saying to democrats and it all of us, don't think there's the us/them guns versus safety dynamic. there isn't. responsible gun owners want to see safety, they want to see background checks and gun show loopholes closed and we shouldn't condescend and assume that they don't. >> megyn: but he seemed to go further. >> megyn. >> megyn: let me respond and give awe chance. he seemed to go further, sally, seemed to go to the fact that the polls show support for some of the measures and said to this group, it's not the public support that matters, it's how strongly people feel about the issue, quote, all these holes polls that you see saying the public is for us, they're meaningless in they're not votings, who is truly motivated to show up and vote based on gun control and gun right. he seems it's the gun rights people to seem to have the

stronger motivation. go ahead, lars. having sally on my radio show, but she's wrong about one thing because she leaves out the polls, also say, washington post poll a week ago said that most the people who say they're for those rules admit they're not going to change the dynamic of these mass shootings and murders. americans who are responsible with guns, whether they own them or not, understand that rules on a piece of paper do not keep anybody from murdering innocents in this countries and everyone who has looked at the president's proposals and those that came out of this biden administration that met for all of a month admit that none of the changes would have done a darn thing about aurora, colorado or sandy hook, that's he demeaning, to suggest to americans we're going to take away your liberties and further infringe on your ability to own a particular type of gun and we know that it's not going to change the murders of americans that happen. >> megyn: i think that tone he struck, don't patronize your

opposition because they seem to have heart felt beliefs on this issue. obama's been criticized for not getting that. when we went it break we played the sound bite of him saying the only reason you're seeing the long lines for the gun stores right now, because people are trying to gin up their own ratings or their own profits. i mean, president clinton, i presume, is not trying to do that. there are people who really genuinely believe this is an infringement on their constitutional rights and does the left risk alienate that, not just the left, but gun control people, by not acknowledging that's a real heart felt belief? >> look, i come from gun hunting, we had the first day of gun hunting off. >> megyn: where? >> in pennsylvania. >> megyn: i didn't know that. >> and i understand the gun culture that president clinton was articulately speaking about. and again, i can it's condescending to challenge lars back to challenge the american people that what they

support, the gun safety laws they support aren't going to work. we already have laws in place that fortunately do make some of these things not as bad as they could be. we do restrict the ability of dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. >> megyn, please. >> if you're on a terrorist watch list you can't get on a plane, but you can get a gun. i don't think see that as an infringement on liberties and neither does justice scalia-- >> legally, no question that the second amendment is not absolute and you can absolutely curtail some gun rights. >> no, it's not. >> megyn: this is a political debate whether it should. i've he got to leave it at that, good discussion, thank you. >> a pleasure, megyn, thanks. >> megyn: we're hearing from a growing number of political observers who think the president intentionally ignored a chance to bring both sides together with the second term inaugural speech to instead focus on dividing and conquering the republican party. some believe that was the goal. we'll of investigate. plus, a community coming together after the home of a

wounded world war ii veteran is trashed. we'll tell how is behind this act and what friends and marines did to make it right. >> maybe this was supposed to be a holiday and they thought they'd do something different or something, but i -- i don't know, i've never even thought about getting into somebody else's.

>> a community banding together after a disturbing crime against this disabled world war ii veteran. 93-year-old albert wood returning from a doctor's appointment in houston on monday to find his home completely trashed. look at the pictures. vandals spray painting his walls, windows, jurnt and even his television it. police later arrested two teenagers.

>> to walk into your house and see something like that, who would do something like this? i don't think i have any enemies that would do something like this. the people that did this, was a 13 and a 16-year-old so i understand maybe this was supposed to be a holiday so they thought they'd do something different or something, but i -- i don't know i've he never even thought about getting into somebody else's house. >> megyn: oh, we are told that some 40 marines and other community members showed up at his home yesterday to help with the cleanup and repairs, good for them. a local business is donating new furniture and we're going to have to find out how our viewers can help albert. i know that, i know they're wondering how they can help and i am sitting here wondering that myself. so we're going to find out by the end of the show how you can help albert wood get through that. wow, unveeshl.believable.

police are investigating a gruesome murder in the city of brotherly love that's start to go get more attention. and a promising young doctor at a children's hospital found tied up and burned in her basement. police are struggling to come up with a lead. trace. >> reporter: what investigators are not findening in case that have them so baffled. no sign of forced entry. no sign anything in the house was taken, she was not sexually assaulted and there's no sign of a major struggle, yet, her ankles and hands were around her and rope around her neck and appears that she died of strangulation. because the scene isn't offering enough evidence, police are now kind of backtracking. >> knocking on doors on the block, we're checking businesses, video cameras, we're talking to everyone.

>> it's just beyond comprehension on our block. >> you heard police say they're checking video cameras, police know that she made several stops before she went home, so maybe, maybe the surveillance cameras show someone following her. so far that's not been the case. did the killer force her into the home? was the killer already inside? these are questions investigators want to know. and her entire goal in will you have was to cure kids with cancer at the hospital she loved and revered. police say her boyfriend is not a suspect. now, there are some grumblings that police may have a person of interest they're looking at, megyn, but so far the police have not confirmed anything about a person of interest. >> megyn: just awesome. all right, trace, thank you. up next, new suggestions that the president intentionally ignored a chance to bring both sides together with the second inaugural speech and instead

deciding it may be more important to politically divide and conquer the political party. we'll investigate. we're hearing about a plan in washington d.c. schools. keep in mind they are last in the nation when it comes to on time graduation rates, last in the nation. so, the new solution, why don't we just eliminate that peststering thing called social security. fair and balanced debate coming up. ♪ i'm only a bill and if they vote for me on capitol hill ♪ ♪ well then i'm off to the white house where i've waited in line with a lot of other bills for the president to sign ♪ ♪ and if he signs me, then i'll be a law ♪ ♪ oh, i hope and pray that he will, but today i am still just a bill ♪ art about your wei. that's why there's glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] glucerna hunger smart.

a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. i'm up next, but now i'm sging the heartburn blues. hold on, prilosec isn't for fast relief. cue up alka-seltzer. it stops heartburn fast. ♪ oh what a relief it is! cue up alka-seltzer. it stops heartburn fast. i have obligations. cute tobligations, but obligations.g. i need to rethink the core of my portfolio. what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of your portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.

and i'm here to tell homeowners that are 62 and older about a great way to live a better retirement. it's called a reverse mortgage. [ male announcer ] call right now to receive your free dvd and booklet with no obligation. it answers questions like how a reverse mortgage works, how much you qualify for, the ways to receive your money, and more. plus, when you call now, you'll get this magnifier with l.e.d. light absolutely free. when you call the experts at one reverse mortgage today, you'll learn the benefits of a government-insured reverse mortgage. it will eliminate your monthly mortgage payments and give you tax-free cash from the equity in your home.

and here's the best part -- you still own your home. take control of your retirement today. ♪ ♪

>> fox news alert. the house just passed a bill that allows the government to borrow enough money to avoid a default. for at least the next four months. up until may 18th. and that diffuses the crisis that had been looming, coming up next month. and it sets the stage for a springtime debate now over taxes, spending, and the deficit. you recall that they had previously been operating under the so-called boehner rule where they were going to require a measure of deficit reduction, a spending cut for every dollar that they increase the debt limit. they have at least postponed that for four months, giving

the president the debt ceiling increase that he wanted till may. the house passed the measure by 285-144 vote and it's a bipartisan showing on an initiative brought fourth by the republicans to control that chamber, days after president obama gave an inaugural speech at that seemed to carry some pointed attacks directored at the republican party. here are excerpts of that. >> we reject the belief that america must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. we do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky. or happiness for the few. the commitments we made to each other, through medicare, medicaid and social security. these things do not sap our initiative. they strengthen us. [applaus [applause]. they do not make us a nation of takers, they free us to take the risks that make this

country great. we, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. we cannot mistake absolutism for principles or substitute spectacle for politics or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. >> megyn: we heard from a top white house advisor who said the barrier to progress here, in many respects, deficits, gun legislation, the economy, that there are factions here in congress, republicans in congress who are out of the mainstream. we need more republicans in congress, he said, to think like republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance. that from david plouffe senior white house advisor. meantime cbs director, dickerson wrote a piece-- hold on, he wrote a piece and a column urging the president

to pulverize and destroy his republican opponents. even to go for the throat in order to quote, cement his legacy. monica crowley is a radio talk show house and kirsten powers, beast -- john dickerson not eric. and let's just start with whether you believe that's true. where are you, kirsten, do you believe it's true that the president's goal is to divide and conquer the republicans, the house republicans, such that they will be defeated, what he uses the more extremist elements, in the 2014 mid terms? >> this is a line preceding the election that that's what he was doing through the whole fiscal cliff debate and i really don't think that during that debate, that's what he was doing, i think it was just sort of gravy for him, that he was destroying them and i think that the republicans, frankly, are doing a really good job of destroying themselves and obama doesn't have to do much. but now looking forward, i think he probably has figured

out that it's in his interest to divide them as much as he can. and i don't think there's anything that's unusual for among politicians and you have people like, you know, cbs' political director writing that's what he should do. i don't think it's exactly a re. >> megyn: what is wrong-- two questions for you, monica, what is wrong with the tea party in the house maintaining their ideological stripes and digging in their heels and saying, no, we're not going to compromise, our constituents don't want us to compromise so-- and what is wrong with the president's response, fine, i'm going to try and divide and conquer you and have the american people vote you out of office. >> there's nothing wrong with either one, this is what our political system is based on. it's based on political differences, it's based on the train wreck of ideas and philosophies, and that's what makes a republic so healthy and dynamic. the problem is the president talks about a line, want to go reach across the aisle and

work with the other side and engage with republicans and quote, so happy to listen to constructive ideas from the other side, but there's nothing in his history or the past pattern of behavior to suggest that he actually does that or wants to do that. and so, it's not enough for this president just to defeat his political opponents, again, this is politics, you don't expect anything other than the president head of his own party, but it's not enough to defeat the republicans, he wants to demolish them, to smash them. i think that kirsten is right, i agree, he has been very lucky in that he's had, at least over the last year or so, a very weak republican party. they seem either unwilling or unable to really take this president on, and take on his philosophy in attempts to smash that. >> megyn: and they have no one-- o'reilly was talking about this, they have no one to really voice their interest, an effective spokesperson to come out and give, you know, powerful voice to the way they feel. but let me ask you this, kirsten, he may want to

pulverize in particular the wing of the republican party that most opposes him. let's call the tea party, whatever it is, but they represent real people who have true beliefs and shouldn't they be heard? i mean, why, why not, does the president says, okay, i get it, but let's talk. and maybe we can find some way. people believe this president is more in the mode, i can't do this this gesture, but finger in the eye. how about that. >> and i just don't agree that they are-- it's true that they represent some people, but they are not the mainstream of this country and this is a result of g gerrymandering in districts. understandable you want to get reelected, there's a separate issue, can the republican party be a strong national party? if they're going to be a strong national party they're going to have to figure this problem out. i'm sorry, they're completely out of touch with reality and they can't even vote for a tax

increase for people who make over a million dollars and then they end up with something that's even worse by their standards. they're too disorganized, they're not in step with the rest of the country, and you know, i'll get lots of nasty tweets how i'm wrong with this and if people don't believe me, fine, i'm just telling you, they're not going to be a serious national party until they figure this out and they don't obama to destroy them. they're destroying themselves. >> i don't think that the republicans-- what obama means is go along with me, give us your core principles and just concede everything that i want and everything the left wants and everything the democrats wants. that's not constructive and that's not the road that the republicans either should go on or want to go on. but i do think that the republican party by and large, needs to refocus on its core principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, economic freedom, individual liberty, strong national defense because i do think that's where most of the american

people are. >> megyn: but you hear that, you hear that to some extent, monica, hear that to some extent from them. but you hear from the other side they get obstinate and like kirsten said, for not wanting to raise taxes on millionaires, it's a philosophical divide that i think they're sincere, but they get mocked for and no progress. >> they've lost their way on this, haven't had a clear focus message on those core principles and you're right to point out they haven't had a charismatic messenger, a warrior to sell this back to the american people, this is not what made america great, but we need to get back to it. >> megyn: kirsten, the last word. >> the tax thing is he crazy, that you can never ever raise taxes is crazy. you know, it used to be that we believed in a progressive tax system and that, you know,

when you go to war, you would raise taxes to pay for it. i just think the republican party has to come to terms with the fact that this is not within the mainstream of america. even when they did polling on exit polling in 2010, the majority of the people, with the conservative electorate said raise taxes on the wealthy. whether you agree with that or not, i'm telling you that's the country-- >> they just did, kirsten. >> megyn: raised taxes on everybody, and a lot of people were surprised to find out it wasn't just the rich and people are still complaining about the fact. >> that's right. >> megyn: that they lost, a nice chunk of their paychecks, a lot of folks around here, we won't look, we don't want to look at our paychecks and know how much has come out. not just the rich folks. anyway, that's a debate for another day. ladies, thank you very much. >> a pleasure, thank you. >> megyn: a possible change in d.c. school standards shining new light on whether students are coming up short in america's education system. why not? if you're struggling to get the kids to graduate, why not

get rid of civics, they don't need to know about that? by the way, they can make it up if they take an extra credit of gym. i kid you not. and a sense that growing government may be getting bigger and we'll talk about whether that's a good thing.

>> a fascinating story from washington d.c. schools today about a proposal to drop civics from the required curriculum in the nation's capital. the seat of government. if approved, some washington d.c. high school students could graduate without learning the basic duties of being an american citizen and how our government works. education reformers say this is just part of a larger national problem. bob bowden is an education expert and the director of the film "the cartel." bob, welcome back. >> thanks. >> megyn: they are a lower on time graduation rate than any

of the 50 states and looking to cure it and one of the proposals is that darned civics is so hard. why don't we get rid of it, that will solve things. >> replacing with the tic-tac-toe curriculum. >> megyn: almost exactly, they have to make more gym if they do that. >> perhaps they're civics geniuses already and that's the reality here. >> megyn: they see the capitol every day. >> on the front lawn. >> megyn: this is scary, these are kids. kids don't generally want to take out a heavy course load, but we have to make them. we have to make them learn english, learn social studies, science, we have to make them. >> you see it's one of the most troubled districts in the country and we do, we have school vouchers in d.c. and then they went away when the obama administration was new and they're back and it's a better voucher program. and many more kids in private that opted out. >> megyn: and what about the poor kids stuck back in the public schools? >> indeed. stories like this about

curriculum changes are troubling. and certainly i would be for good evening government and civics just like algebra and i don't know, shakespeare in high school and a lot of other things. >> megyn: it's in the nation's capital, it's the irony. >> it should be be everywhere, but there is also a point to be made, another level of a school choice model where different kinds of schools can form different kinds of curricula can be provided for schools that want-- kids want focus on science and math, dramatic arts or vocational skills. >> megyn: focus right. but i believe in home schooling, i believe in having parents having choice and so, if different schools form and that i may not agree with, whatever they are, i still support the parents' right to pick alternate schools. >> megyn: isn't there a basic agreement even though you do home schooling, cover the three r's and social studies. >> i would be surprised if there were any kind of major system besides d.c. that had

made a decision like this. i'm he for keeping it in the curriculum and also for freedom, so there would be a scenario where there could be things i wouldn't agree he with, but i would be for parents' rights. >> megyn: the d.c. state board of education says it's trying to improve the situation for students and they're going to increase some of the requirements for the students and they now have to take foreign language for two years and used to be the same language. use today take one in spanish and one in french. that sort of thing. the reason they're pushing to phys-ed and you have to take additional unit of that and additional 225 minutes of physical activity every week, pretty substantial because they're worried about the physical health of a lot of the inner city students who haven't necessarily been educated on how to eat well and how to keep yourself fit and that's physical well-being is also important to intellectual well-being, but at what cost? >> and the academic-- >> at what cost, getting rid of civics, especially in the

nation's capital, but anywhere? >> so many of these courses are so poorly taught, getting rid of them may not affect the students at all. in some the worst functioning schools in america, an and whether civics is in or kept out may produce the same children. and the graduation rates are higher since 1976. we should proud, the graduation rights are multi-decade high and if you look at the story deeper 78%, the four-year high school graduation right more than one out of five kids in america today are not finishing high school on time. and districts like kansas city a 40% graduation rate. chicago, 61% graduation rate. so there are huge problems and a lot of kids are dropping out and it goes way beyond just the case of d.c. students. >> megyn: next week is national choice week, you'll hear more about what does it

mean and how does it affect you and your family. if you don't have it, how can you get it. bob, thanks for being here. >> school choice week.com. >> megyn: thank you, sir. up next, how this paper gun got a little girl in big trouble at school. [ male announcer ] this is anna, her long day teaching the perfect swing begins with back pain and a choice. take advil, and maybe have to take up to four in a day. or take aleve, which can relieve pain all day with just two pills. good eye. [ male announcer ] it's red lobster's 30 shrimp! for $11.99 pair any two shrimp selections on one plate! like mango jalapeño shrimp and parmesan crunch shrimp. just $11.99. offer ends soon! i'm ryon stewart, and i sea food diffently.

>> well, new concerns that america's gun debate may be going too far. this time, a fifth grader is pulled from class for having something that simply resembles a firearm, in this case, it's a piece of paper. and that looks like something you could have cut in half and send a note to your friend on. and she says the teacher ridiculed her and searched her in front of the class and as you can guess, her mother is not happy. trace dwgallagher has the

latest. >> reporter: she's not happy. melanie valentine says her grandfather tore the piece of paper out of that, she had it in the back pocket and went to throw it away and one of the classmates saw it and notified the school. >> he yelled at me and said i shouldn't have never brung the gun to school and i kept telling him it was a paper gun, but he wouldn't listen. >> mom says thed the daughter in front of her classmates perhaps looking for paper bullets, who knows and melanie says her classmates began to tease her, listen again. >> calling me a murderer. >>. i'm waking up at three o'clock in the morning and my daughter is in the bathroom crying, she said i'm having nightmares, i'm having dreams he's chasing me down the street. >> so mom says she's still waiting for the school to respond to her, but in the

meantime pulled other daughter out of class and by the way, we're still waiting for the school and the school district to respond to us and in fact, the district says they can't get the school to respond to them. if they can't get a response not a great chance we'll get one. don't forget, this is the third incident in as many weeks, we have the hello kitty, bubble gun and the two boys, imagery, with their fingers. >> megyn: trace, thank you. fox news alert on round two for secretary of state hillary clinton, we received the video of the secretary headed into a house hearing this morning, it was the senate, hearing room where she will be facing questions about benghazi for the second time in a day. and this session is set to begin any moment now, and we're starting our second hour of "america live" a little early today. so welcome back and welcome to those of you just joining us,

i'm megyn kelly. this is the house foreign affairs committee. earlier today, secretary clinton was questioned by the committee's senate counterpart and it got a bit heated at times. when it was over, republican lawmakers said they did not get the answers they were looking for. the reason for the administration's changing narrative about the events leading up to that terror attack on our consulate on 9/11 of 2012. four american died that night, including our ambassador chris stevens. our fox news senior political analyst brit hume joins us now, good to see you again. so, it was an emotional morning for hillary clinton at times, near tears when she talked about her phone calls with the families, and a contentious morning, too, as senator ron johnson pressed her why we were all told this was about a protest when it would have been very easy for her to ascertain that there was no protest outside of that consulate. i just want to show before i get the viewers at that exchange, because i know --

what i'm talking about let's play it. >> we were told allegedly protests and this all sprang out of that and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact. >> but-- >> the american people could have known at that within days and they didn't know that. >> with all due respect, the fact is we have four dead americans, was it because of a protest or guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill americans. what difference at this point does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. >> megyn: wow. your thoughts, brit? >> well, my thought was she had that answer ready for the moment she need it had and she gave it and it was to some extent supported and given some credibility, perhaps, by the fact she had been tearful earlier when she described her meetings with the parents or discussions with the parents of those who were lost. i don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of her grief about that, but the fact is, it does

give a little force to her response to senator johnson, four people were dead, who cares about the, exactly the way it came about and so forth. the problem of course is that there is reason to care about how it came about because the public was clearly misled by people who work for her and others in the days immediately afterwards and one subject that never arose, at least directly, was the subject of the video. you remember the famous video, the anti-muslim video that was supposed to have been responsible for so many unrest in the middle east and earlier cited by jay carney, by susan rice and others as the proximate cause of the outbreak of violence that led to the four deaths in benghazi. >> megyn: right, she did say that she was not responsible for the talking points that were delivered by susan rice on the sunday talk shows. >> nor, and indeed, she also said she wasn't responsible for picking susan rice as the person to go out, which i

think is true. i'm sure that was the white house that chose her. >> megyn: right. >> and she also said that she hadn't read any of the cables that had come to the state department pleading for more security in benghazi, so, she got herself at least, sought to get herself off the hook on a number of counts. >> megyn: but circling back to the first exchange with ron johnson, for hillary clinton to say what does it matter, what difference at this point does it make in response to his question of why were we misled that there were protests when there weren't? and senator mccain tried to answer this later, brit. he said, look, your answers are are unacceptable to me, because he thought the administration was trying to keep a soft footprint, that we had it, it was under control and they didn't need a bunch of americans troops there, notwithstanding the red cross left benghazi, an attempt on the british ambassador's life

and our consulate attacked and a huge hole in the wall from a bomb dropped us in june of 2012, and yet, he believes we were trying to project, like it's all good and that a terrorist planning an attack may not have been consistent with that projection as we wait to hear hillary clinton and opening remarks, your thoughts on that? >> well, it was a forceful argument made by senator mccain and i suspect it will get some play because it was said with some vigor, but the problem with this, megyn, this hearing and we don't know what will happen this afternoon, but i suspect it will be similar, it the infirmties that these congressional hearings normally have and that is that the members themselves prove not to be very good interrogators. the witnesses who are normally government officials who know the in's and out's of their jobs and all that goes on bet her than the interrogators do, the case it a considerable extent here, it was a crowded hearing which allowed the chairman to say, okay, we'll

have five minute rounds, it's very hard to develop a line of questioning in a five minute round. of course when your five minute round, if you're one of the ones trying to get to the bottom of the thing and not to protect the witness, your five minute round is over and one of the protectors comes on and goes for five minutes or so. so, everything is sort of chopped up into small pieces. very smart of secretary clinton to have both hearings on the same day. compresses the length of both. so, what you had here today was some argument and some passion, but did we really learn anything new? i'm not sure we did. >> megyn: yeah, and as we listen to ed royce, the chairman of this committee in the house open the proceedings, we will listen in, brit hume our thanks for you for your analysis, he's a california republican, republicans have control of the house that chair this committee and we will listen, among other things to them probe a little deeper into what happened on 9/11 of last

year. and who was responsible for the events leading up to it and what many have viewed as an absence of an appropriate response to t no one killed, no one captured, one person captured and let go where things stand today. and by the way, no one fired at the state department in the wake of this. let's listen in. >> better protect its employees, many of whom serve in hostile environments. unfortunately, threats to americans abroad are growing, particularly those threats are growing in north africa and the attacks last week in algeria, again, show the nature of the danger. i support having a wide diplomatic presence. we can't retreat, as you recognized in your testimony, but it has to be done with the safety of our personnel foremost in mind. this committee intends to work with your department in a

bipartisan way and work to improve security. every organization has its shortcomings, few welcome it being highlighted, but it's this committee's job to get answers to the tough questions. our goal is to identify where state department management broke down, thus failing to protect our people in benghazi. it is clear that the problem was not confined to a few individuals. the accountability review board convened by you, madam secretary, found quote, systemic failures in leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the state department. according to the board, these systemic failures led to the quote, grossly inadequate security in libya. the benghazi compound was facing a storm of militancy, a

flood of weapons and facing a deteriorating security environment. attacks were escalating on the compound, yet, the compound was inexpicably forced to rely on unarmed libyan guards and a militia that included extremist elements. no wonder the board found a pervasive realization among those in benghazi that security was not a high priority for washington, according to the report. the board found that responsibility stopped at the assistant secretary level below the department's most senior management, this seems to contrast with the recommendation of the 1990 -- 1999 accountable on the east africa bombings which said quote, the secretary of state should take a personal and active role in security issues. this committee is concerned that the department's most senior officials either should have known about the worsening

security situation in benghazi or did know something about that security situation. either way, either way, the point is that security requests were denied. so, i'm not sure the board, i'm not sure the board here saw the full picture and if not, its report is not a complete blueprint for fixing things. the state department must get this right. al-qaeda and its affiliates will very likely be targeting other diplomates for years to come. madam secretary, the committee stands ready to help, i learned this morning that you and the administration have proposed legislation to fibs the -- fix the review board which the committee looks forward to. today's discussion may turn to funding, but he when reading the conclusions of the board, one must ask how more money

would have made a difference in a bureaucracy plagued by what the board called systemic failures. after all, as the security situation in libya worsened, the state department turned away three security assets from the department of defense. state department officials have testified that funding was not an issue. more resources may have been needed in some areas, but the tragedy of benghazi was rooted in bad decisions. finally, the benghazi perpetrators must be apprehended or they must be killed. it's troubling that tunisia recently released a key suspe suspect f suspect. poor libyan cooperation has hampered the investigation. it's a matter of justice and a matter of signaling to militants that there is no place for them to hide if they attack u.s. personnel.

i will now turn to the distinguished ranking member, mr. englingle for his opening remarks. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman for holding this important meeting. i hope we can use this as an opportunity to seriously examine the steps we need to take to prevent a repeat of the tragedy in benghazi, rather that engaging in gotcha politics that make it more difficult to achieve this bipartisan's goal. madam secretary, as the new ranking member on the foreign affairs committee, let me say on behalf of the of democratic members of this committee we'd like to welcome you back to our committee and glad you're feeling better. this will likely be your final appearance before our committee, and i want to take this opportunity to let now how much we appreciate your outstanding and tireless efforts to represent our country in the international community. i have no doubt that you will continue to serve our nation in some capacity as you have for so many years, and i look forward to working with you in the future. and might i add, as a new

yorker, i feel especially proud of the wonderful and outstanding job you've done as secretary of state. i think that when we look at the outstanding secretary of states in our history of 0 your country, you will be right up there at the very, very top. the way you've worked, the tireless effort you've had, crisscrossing the globe so many times, you have just been indispensable to us as americans and thank you on behalf of democrats and americans, democrats and republicans, we really want to thank you. mr. chairman, the committee has no greater responsibility than making sure that the men and women of the state department, usaid and other public servants who work abroad are provided the security they deserve, we must do what we can to minimize the threats faced by our diplomates and aide workers, but recognize some risk is inherent in the practice of

effective diplomacy. we cannot advance america's interests around the wormed if we isolates ourselves behind embassy balls or our diplomates to low risk environments. the accountability review board or arb convened by secretary clinton found a number of failures resulted from a lack of leadership in two state department bureaus as well as woefully inadequate security in benghazi. and clearly mistakes were made. let's be clear, president obama was not responsible for the benghazi attack any more than george w. bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or ronald reagan was responsible for the attacks on our marine barracks in beirut which killed over 200 marines. frankly, whether it was called a terrorist attack or not. in the immediate aftermath as far as i'm concerned is irrelevant. we just have to make sure that it never happens again. so that in the future, our

people are protected. that's what, what i want to get out of all of this. so madam secretary, we commend you for accepting the arb recommendations and welcome you implementing them before you leave the department. even before the arb submitted conclusions the department moved to address certain shortcomings for which increased security proposal, the vast majority of the funding for this proposal would come from funds previously appropriated for lower priority programs. and hope congress will move without delay to give the department the transfer authority it needs to start applying these changes. it is important to remember that security is not a one-often did he ever, indeed it's a long-term responsibility and investment. in that context members of the arb led by ambassador pickering, and highlighted the state department struggle to get the resources it needs. the ongoing problem has led to a culture the at the department in which some senior managers appear to be

more interested in conserving resources than in achieving specific goals. the arb report says, quote, the solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from congress to support state department needs, unquote. regrettably, it's clear that congress is still failing to meet this commitment. in the most recent state department funding bill approved by the house appropriations commit the request for embassy security and construction and maintenance was cut by 112 million dollars and worldwide security protection reduced by 149 million dollars. the senate by comparison did not cut either account. so, let me again reiterate what i just said about congress' responsibility. over the past two years alone the administration's requests for diplomatic security funding has been slashed by more than half a billion dollars in congress. this makes it impossible for the state department to build enough new, secure diplomatic facilities or improve those

that already exist. the current appropriations bill for fiscal 2013 continues this negative trend of the the measure reported out of the house appropriations committee, has based funding for worldwide security protection and embassy construction and maintenance by more than 260 million dollars. the senate appropriations committee fully funded both requests. so what i'm saying here is that we have much work to do to ourselves, for ourselves. if we truly want to maintain a global reach then we need to make the necessary investments in safeguarding our personnel who serve in dangerous environments. mr. chairman, you indicated your intention to work on a work department authorization with you in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that improves department's ability to manage its resources and provide the funding necessary to secure our people and facilities globally. so, i thank you and i look forward to the secretary's

testimony. >> thank you, mr. ingle. to help us understand the state department's response to the benghazi attack, we are joined today by hillary rodham clinton, the 67th secretary of state. she has had a long career in public service, and for the past four years secretary clinton served as president obama's secretary of state and she will soon move onto the next chapter in her distinguished career. madam secretary, without objection, your whole statement will be made part of the record and all members here will have five days to submit statements and questions for the record, subject to the limitations of the committee rules. madam secretary, please begin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i thank you and the ranking member and members of the committee, both of longstanding tenure and brand new members and i appreciate your patience for

me to be able to come to fulfill my commitment to you, the former chairwoman that i would be here to discuss the attack in benghazi. i appreciate this opportunity, i will submit my for the committee and i want to make just a few points. first the terrorist attacks in benghazi that claimed the lives of four brave americans, are part of a strategic challenge to the united states and our partners in north africa, i think it's important that we understand the context for this challenge, as we work together, to protect our people, and honor our fallen colleagues. any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this sobering fact. since 1988 there have been 19 accountability review boards, investigating attacks on american diplomates and their

facilities. since 1977, 65 american diplomatic personnel have been killed by terrorists. in addition to those who have been killed, we know what happened in tehran with hostages being taken in 1979, our embassy and marine barracks bombeded in beirut in 1983 and the towers in saudi arabia 1996, our embassies in east africa in 1998. consulate staff murdered in jeddah, saudi arabia in 2004. the attack in afghanistan in 2009 and too many others. but i also want to stress the list of attacks that were foiled, crisis averted and lives saved is even longer. we should never forget that the security professionals get it right more than 99% of the time against difficult odds because the terrorists only need to get it right once. that's why, like all my

predecessors, i trust the diplomatic security professionals with my life. let's also remember that, as the chairman and the ranking member pointed out, administrations of both parties in partnership with congress have made concerted and good-faith efforts to learn from the tragedies that have occurred to implement recommendations from the review boards to seek the necessary resources to better protect our people in a constantly evolving threat environment. in fact, mr. chairman, of the 19 accountability review boards that have been held since 1988, only two have been made public. i want to stress that because the two that have been made public coming out of the east africa embassy bombings, and this one, are attempts, honest attempts by the state department, by the secretary,

secretary albright and myself, to be as transparent and open as possible. we wanted to be sure that whatever these independent, nonpartisan boards found, would be made available to the congress and to the american people. because as i have said many times since september 11th, i take responsibility and nobody is more committed to getting this right. i am determined to leave the state department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure. now, taking responsibility meant not only moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis, but also, to make sure we were protecting our people and posts in high threat areas across the region and the world. it also meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly what happened in benghazi and to recommend steps for improvement, and it also meant intensifying our efforts to

combat terrorism and support emerging democracies in north africa and beyond. let me share briefly the lessons we have learned up until now. first, let's start on the night of september 11th itself and the early days. i directed our response from the state department and stayed in close contact with officials in our government and the libyan government. so i did see firsthand what ambassador pickering and chairman mullen called timely coordination, no delaying of decision making, no denials of support from washington or our military and i want to echo the review board's praise for the valor and courage of our people on the ground, especially our security professionals in benghazi and tripoli. the board said our response saved american lives in real-time and it did. the very next morning, i told the american people, and i quote, heavily armed militants

assaulted our compound and vowed to bring them to justice. and i stood later that day with president obama as he spoke of an act of terror. now, you may recall at this same time period we were also seeing violent attacks on our embassies in cairo, suenam tunis and khartoum, as well as posts from india to indonesia where thousands of our diplomates served. so i immediately ordered a review of our security posture around the world for particular scrutiny for high threat posts and i asked the department of defense to join inner agency security assessment teams and to dispatch hundreds of marine security guards. the first assistant for secretary of state for high threat posts so they get the attention they need and we reached out to congress to help address physical

vulnerabilities, including risk from fire and to hire additional diplomatic security personnel and marine security guards. second, even as i took these steps, i quickly moved to a point the accountability review board because i wanted them to come forward with their report before i left. because i felt the responsibility and i wanted to be sure that i was putting in motion the response to whatever they found, what was wrong, how do we fix it. i've accepted every one of their recommendations, our deputy secretary for management and resources, deputy tom nigh to appear before this committee last month and task force all 29 implemented quickly and completely as well as pursuing additional steps above and beyond the board. i pledged in my letter to you last month that implementation has now begun on all 29 recommendations, we've translated them into 64 specific action items.

they were all assigned to specific bureaus and offices, with clear timelines for completion, fully 85% are on track to be completed by the end of march, with a number completed already, but we're also taking a top to bottom look to rethink how we make decisions on where, when, and whether our people should operate in high threat areas and how we respond. we're initiating an annual high threat post review, shared for the first time in american history, i suppose, by the secretary of state. an ongoing reviews by the deputy secretaries to ensure that pivotal questions about security reach the highest level and we will regular lahrilahize sharing with congress. the immediate action we took and review board process, we're moving on a third front. addressing the broader strategic challenge in north africa and the wider region. benghazi did not happen in a

vacuum. the arab revolutions have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region. instability in mali has created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we just saw last week in algeria and let me offer our deepest condolences to the families of the americans and all the people from many nations killed and injured in the algerian hostage crisis. we remain in close touch with the government of algeria ready to provide assistance if needed and also seeking to gain a fuller understanding of what took place so we can work together to prevent such terrorist attacks in the future. now, concerns about terrorism and instability in north africa are not new of course. indeed, they've been a top priority for this entire national security team. but, we need to work together to accelerate a diplomatic

campaign to increase pressure on al-qaeda and the islam magreb in the region. and two weeks later after the attack i met with very large group of regional leaders at the u.n. and was part of a special meeting focused on mali. and in october i flew to algeria to discuss the fight against aqim. in november i secretary deputy secretary bill byrnes on an inner agency group to algiers to continue that conversation and in my stead co-chaired the forum in abu dhabi and tunis, working on not only building new democracies, but securi security-- enforcing security services. these are engagements we are having focusing on al-qaeda's

syndicate of terror, closing safe havens, cutting off finances and countering their extremist ideology and slowing the recruits. and continue to hunt for the terrorist ins benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice and using our diplomatic and economic tools to support the emerging democracies, including libya in order to give them the strength to provide a path away from extremism. but finally, the united states must continue to lead. in the middle east, in north africa and around the globe. we've come a long way in the past four years and we cannot afford to retreat now. when america is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences, extremism takes root, our interests suffer and our security at home is threatened. that's why chris stevens went to benghazi in the first place. i asked him to go. during the beginning of the revolution against gaddafi, we

needed somebody in benghazi who could begin to build bridges with the insurgents and to begin to demonstrate that america would stand against gaddafi. nobody knew the dangers or the opportunities better than chris. first during the revolution, then during the transition. a weak libyan government, marauding militias, even terrorist groups, a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel. he never wavered, he never asked to come home, he never said let's shut it down, quit and go somewhere else, because he understood it was critical for america to be represented in that place at that pivotal time. so, mr. chairman, we do have to work harder and better to balance the risks and the opportunities. our men and women serve overseas, understand if we do

accept a level of risk to represent and protect the country we love. they represent the best traditions of a bold and generous nation. they cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs, but it is our responsibility to make sure they have the resources they need to do those jobs and to do everything we can to reduce the risks they face. for me, this is not just a matter of policy, it's personal, because i've had the great honor to lead the men and women of the state department and usaid, nearly 70,000 serving here in washington and more than 275 posts around the world. they get up and go to work every day, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances, thousands of miles from home, because they believe the united states is the most extraordinary force for peace and progress the earth has ever known. and when we suffer tragedies overseas, the number of

americans applying to the foreign service actually increases. that's everything we need to know about the kind of patriots i'm talking about. they do ask what they can do for their country and america is stronger for it it. so, today, after four years in this job, travelling nearly a million miles and visiting nearly 112 countries, my faith and our country and our future is better than ever. every time that blue and white airplane carrying the name united states touches down in a far off capital, i feel the honor it is to represent the world's indispensable nation and i'm confident with your help we will continue to keep the united states, safe, strong and exceptional and i would be very happy to answer your questions. >> thank you, madam secretary. i think our state department personnel do certainly accept a level of risk and they do so in order, as you've said quite

properly, to continue to lead, but -- and we recognize, i think, that hindsight is 20/20. but with regard to the benghazi attacks what is probably most disturbing, as the question comes before the committee, as the media looks at the situation, the dots here were connected here ahead of time. the state department saw this risk coming and the state department didn't ask, didn't act in order to prevent what could have been handled probably by answering the request by our personnel. so, if we look at the state department e-mail exchange on top officials in the bureau, written right after the assassination attempt on the british ambassador in june of 2012, here is the exchange.

quote, this is very concerning when you start putting the events together. the anti-american demonstration, the attack on our compound and now the u.k. motorcade attack. if the tide is turning and they are now looking for americans and westerners to attack, that is a game changer. we are not staffed or resourced adequately to protect our people in that type of environment. we are a soft target, unquote. so, here is the point. senior officials fully appreciated the grave threats in benghazi. they knew that al-qaeda was there. they knew that our security was insufficient, but instead of adding security, in this case they took it away. they withdrew mobile security detachment teams. they sent packing a special team that the defense

department provided, and provided at no cost. so if senior officials knew that our diplomates weren't safe, weren't adequately staffed, then why did they continue to withdraw security? i think that's, that's the first question. in testimony this morning, you said you'd never saw those requests. and i understand that. last month though deputy secretary burns testified that memos regarding the deteriorating security situation did make their way to the 7th floor, to top management. so, what senior official was he referring to when he talks about top management there? who in the senior management was responsible for responding to those requests that were coming from the field? that would be my question. >> we there's a lot of important questions in that, mr. chairman, and let me begin

by saying that i was aware of certain incidents at our facility and the attack on the british diplomate. i was briefed on steps taken to repair the breach in the perimeter wall after the june bombing, steps taken to reduce compound movement. our team, led by security professionals, but also including intelligence professionals and others did not recommend, based on those incidents, abandoning benghazi. in part because over the last years, we have become accustomed to operating in dangerous places. in pakistan, in iraq, excuse me, in afghanistan, and yemen and elsewhere. and we do, as by necessity, rely on security professionals to implement the protocols and procedures necessary to keep our people safe and as i said in my opening statements, i have a lot of confidence in them because, you know, most of the time they get it right.

but i was also engaged, and i think this is what deputy secretary burns was referring to, in the issues related to the deteriorating threat environment, particularly in libya. there were other places across the region we were also watching to try to see what we could do to support the libyan government to improve the overall stability of their country, to deal with the many militias. we have many programs and actions that we were working on. i had a number of conversations with leading libyan officials, i went to libya in october, 2011. in fact, shortly before the attack on benghazi, we approved libya for substantial funding from a joint state dod account for border security, ct capabilities and wmd efforts. so i want to just clarify there were specific instances

and assessments going on primarily by the security professionals relate today individual posts, including benghazi. >> but what i saw was a communique which indicated that in fact those assets, like the security site team, were in fact pulled. you had free of cost here from the department of defense, a team in place. and on about august 15th, some weeks before the attack. the question is, can we extend that security take, and the answer is no, it would be embarrassing to our agency if that agency is providing the protection. that struck me as a little bit of the problem that we had before, between the cia and the fbi, between you know, two agencies that were more focused perhaps on the rivalry than they were on the providing the security. and we're full circle now, based on the reading, literal

reading of those memos. here you had the request. so that's my question. okay, they didn't, they didn't come to the conclusion that we should increase security, but what about the question of having security actually withdrawn august 15th in terms of the security site team provided by the department of defense? >> well, again, i'm glad you raised that. the arb looked into it as if looked into everything. it does the not discuss the fft or recommend that our personnel on the ground should have asked for continued deployment and i think that's in part because the sst was based in tripoli. >> right. >> it's hardly ever, less than 2% of the entire time it was in libya did it even go to benghazi. its responsibilities, which were about the sighting of, the security of the embassy were focused on tripoli and it was not an open-ended arrangement as it has been

understood. it was intended as an interim measure and the experts who were there played vital roles. they were communications specialists, airfield specialists, trained medics, they helped to stand-up our embassy in tripoli when we reopened it and i think it's important this they were very -- they were very helpful with the embassy, but at the end of the day, they really were not focused on, nor did they pay much attention to benghazi. and i think since their primary mission was at the embassy, the embassy did acquire a lot of assets and that was the decision that they should not be extended for a third time. >> madam, secretary, thank you, we're going to mr. engel from new york. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. madam secretary, you and the state department have rightfully taken responsibility for what happened convening the arb and their recommendations as i said in my opening statement we need to be clear-eyed

there's blame to share right here in congress. over the past two years alone, the request, for diplomatic funding has been slashed in congress and current appropriations bill for fiscal 2013 continues the negative trend slashing funding for worldwide protection, embassy security, construction and maintenance by more than 260 million dollars so i'd like to ask you, madam secretary, do you think that congress has provided adequate resources for diplomatic security in recent years? can you talk about security priorities? you've not been able to complete due to inadequate budget? and what advice would you give the committee as it considers funding to protect our diplomates? and i want to also add what would happen even worse to the security of our diplomates and our diplomatic facilities if there is a sequester or worse, the government shut down, as the state department begin planning for the dangers of congress not agreeing on a

budget? >> well, congressman engel, this is a bipartisan problem. since 2007, the department has consistently requested greater funding for embassy construction and diplomatic security, but with the exception of 2010, the congress has consistently enacted less than requested. most notably in 2012, the department received 340 million dollars less than requested, close to 10% less. now, over the last two years, cuts to the embassy construction, security and maintenance budget was almost 10% of that as well. now, the arb and i would refer to them because, now, they had an independent view of this, has recommended an increase in facilities funding to 2.2 billion per year to restore the construction levels that were called for in the 1998 arb report. but, i think it's also fair to make the point the arb made, consistent shortfalls have required the government to try

to prioritize and the department has attempted to do that, but i do think that there became a culture of reaction, you know, as the arb report says, husbanding resources and trying to figure out how to do as much with as little as possible. and so, although our prioritization was certainly imperfect, the funds provided by congress were inadequate. somehow we have to work on both ends of that equation. now, what can you do? well, first of all, we came up with a request to the legislative and budget staffs for transfer authority language, namely taking money we already had in this budget and letting us move it quickly to do what the arb told us to do, more marine security guards, more diplomatic security guards, more construction and upgrades. we were able to get that included in the senate version

of the sandy supplemental which passed on december 28th, but we were unable to get the language included in the house version. this is not new money. so, first and foremost, i would greatly appreciate this committee weighing in, working with your counterpart in the senate, give us this transfer authority otherwise we're going to be behind the curve again. secondly, i think it's very important to change the laws about best value contracting, versus lowest price technically qualified. by statute, the state department local guard contracts in dangerous places like libya, and everywhere else, except iraq, and afghanistan, must be awarded using a lowest price, technically acceptable selection process. we have requested a change in the legislation that would allow us to use some discretion to try to deal with the varieties and vagueries of

the local guard force, we currently have it in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan, but that's going to expire and that's something else i would respectfully ask this committee to look into and finally, the point that the chairman made and that you echoed, congressman, an authorization. you know, working on an authorization. i was on the armed services committee in the senate. we did an authorization every year no matter what was going on in the world. it was a great organizing tool, it made sure that our defense needs were going to be met. i believe that in the world in which we're living, our diplomacy and development needs are very important, but we don't have the same focus, and so, working with the senate foreign relations committee on an authorization where you can look at everything, and you can have subcommittees delving into the different issues, coming up with an authorization i think

would be a great step forward. >> thank you, thank you madam secretary. >> rosslayton from new york-- >> from florida, and retired from new york to florida, from florida. >> we'll take it either way, new jersey, new york, come on down. madam secretary-- >> there are a lot of new yorkers already down there, i think. >> you can only vote once, very, very picky about that. >> thank you for the positive working relationship that we have had during your tenure at the state department. i request that i get written responses for the questions that i'm going to ask. first, why were you not interviewed for the review board by the review board investigators and how could this review be considered thorough when the person at the top, the secretary of state, was not part of the investigation? that's what was said in our open hearing when it was confirmed that you were never

questioned for this report, and i think that's outrageous. also the state department was clearly allowing the false narrative that department officials were being held accountable for what went wrong in benghazi, for ignoring the threat and it was perceived as fact. look at these headlines. the new york times, four are out at state department after scathing report on benghazi attack. not true. heads roll at the state department, not true. yet, state did nothing to correct the record. and here we are, 130 days after the terrorist attack, why did you not take steps publicly to correct this false narrative, even up to and including today. even when your deputy burns testified for us, both being

said steps were taken to discipline those state department officials when in fact no significant action had or has occurred. there's just been a shuffling of the deck chairs. do you find it acceptable that state officials responsible for this, the lack of leadership, and mismanagement, for ignoring security requests during the benghazi attack and before remain employed within the state department? also, the accountability report cites several systemic failures at the department that cannot be overlooked or ignored. given that state was aware of the dangerously declining security situation in benghazi as pointed out by our chairman, the assassination attempt on the british ambassador, other attacks on western interests, why did state not immediately revamp our security protocols prior to the september 11th attack? did state fail to act

preemptively because it ignored the threat or fail to act because it was unable to recognize this growing pattern of violence? either way, state did fail to act. and these failures highlighted by the arb report serve as a blueprint for terrorists on where our weaknesses lie, where we are vulnerable. so what actions have you taken to ensure that when another embassy, another consulate, sound the alarm on security threats, as it happened in benghazi, that those requests are not yet again ignored? and as we examine the willingness and capacity of host countries in the region, we must condition aide to these high threat posts based on their cooperation with the united states, i hope that we do that. now, regarding the state's request for more money, i think it's worth pointing out that some state department officials have stated that budget constraints are not to

blame for the loss of lives in benghazi, however, the state department is notorious for wasteful spending and continues to have misplaced funding priorities between the state department, treasury, and usaid, the fiscal year 2012 request for global climate change initiative is over 1.3 billion dollars. now, what do we think or what do you think is a higher priority and a better use of taxpayers' money, national security or global climate change? this money could have been used for embassy construction, for hiring more diplomacy security agencies, agents, for providing our posts and personnel overseas with adequate equipment and training. so -- and there's more i could get to, but certainly i appreciate your written answers, including the 64 specific action items that you

will be taking on the task force recommendations and we look forward to getting a detailed report here in congress on explaining their justification, their itemized funding layout. et cetera. so thank you, madam secretary, for the time. >> congressman, obviously we'll answer all of your questions and let me comment on two of them even though my time has run out. first, i was not asked to speak with the accountability review board during their investigation. the specific issues they were looking at regarding the attack on benghazi were handled by security professionals in the department and that's where they are focused. obviously, if they had thought that i was relevant or had information that would have helped the investigation i would have gladly discussed that with them at their request. secondly, on the personnel. this is another area where i need your help. first, all four individuals have been removed from their jobs and secondly placed on administrative leave, thirdly,

ambassador pickering and admiral mullen specifically highlighted the reason why this has been so complicated. under federal statute and regulation, unsatisfactory leadership is not grounds for finding a breach of duty. and the arb did not find that these four individuals breached their duty. so, fourth, i have submitted legislation to this committee and to the senate committee to fix this problem so future arb's will not face this situation. because i agree with you, there ought to be more leeway given to the arb, under the current law they are limited. >> secretary will be working on that. >> thank you ranking member for calling this important hearing and madam secretary, thank you for your most eloquent statement. your service to our nation has been exemplary and outstanding. and any discussion otherwise during today's hearing, i

would consider unfair and unwarranted. we meet today under difficult circumstances. i am sure that when you as secretary of state stood at andrews air force base at transfer of remains of ambassador christopher stevens, mr. sean smith, mr. doherty, must have felt tremendous pain and suffering as we express in our proverb-- meaning the stones in earth wet. and madam secretary, please know that you were not alone. we went with you and with the families of our stallen hero heroes. it is true that the benghazi attacks the first time since 1979 that an american ambassador has been killed in the line of duty, but it is also true that the world has changed significantly since

19 1979 and consequently the department of state is increasingly operating in high-threat locations throughout the world. t accountability review board rightly observed that congress needs to make a serious and sustained commitment supporting state department needs, but the fy 213 fiscal year budget, the house cut the administration's request by about 200 million dollars. however, having been provided 2.6 billion dollars to security funding, i wonder if the congress had done its part and fulfill its responsibility in providing the state department with the necessary resources and funding to meet its needs, especially to provide security for our embassies and consulates throughout the world. i agree with arb's recommendation that is we should restore the capital security cost sharing program which pulls money from different agencies in order to accelerate construction of new

embassies and consulates. and honor of christopher stevens, mr. sean smith, tyrone woods and mr. glenn doherty, we need to-- we need answers so we can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. it is no good for any of us to use this tragedy for political gain. this was a terrorist attack, first and foremost and we must not lose site of this brutal tactffactactfu tactf tactful-- instead defeat those who would do us harm. and i commend you for the anti-terrorism act of 1986 and for accepting all 29 of their recommendations of the arb commission. for the past 20 years you have served our nation well. you have done all could you do to deliver freedom, safely to future generations. i salute you and i look ahead

to 2016, wishing you much success in extending to you my highest regards. (laughter) i do have one question or a couple if i have time. madam secretary, i note with interest one of your quotes, a statement here that this is why ambassador chris stevens went to benghazi, i want to get the sense that the commitment that our service officers throughout the world is second to none, even at the risk of their lives and i wish my colleagues would understand, if he, we have fiscal problems and funding, but the fact that these people willingly did this not only for his love of the leaders and people of libya, but so proud to represent this great nation of ours and like to you elaborate further what you meant by this, that ambassador stevens went to benghazi knowing the dangers, knowing the dangers were there he went

still. could you please comment on that? >> well, congressman, i think it is absolutely the case that we have a foreign service that is composed of men and women who take on these responsibilities because they love our country, they go in with their eyes wide open, they learn languages, thimmerse themselves in cultures and go out to the foreign service institute and hone their skills and chris stevens was one of our very best. he started off in the peace corps in moroce rococmorocco, wt arabic speaker and throughout the arab world and when i asked if he would be interested in going to benghazi where we had nothing when he first went, where he bunked up in a hotel, we didn't have any support to speak of. he was thrilled and he

understood immediately what it would mean. in the wake of this tragedy, this terrible terrorist attack, i think one of the most poignant events has been overlooked and that is what happened after the libyan people from benghazi to tripoli learned that chris stevens, someone whom they gotten to know, whom they had trusted and admired had been murdered, they went out into the streets, they protested themselves, thousands, tens of thousands, far more than the dozens of highly armed, you know, invaders of our compound and our annex, and they made it clear that that was not the country of country they were trying to build. so, in some ways, chris' faith certainly after his death was value lated. >> welcome, madam secretary,

we all mourn the loss of four americans, including the loss of the ambassador chris stevens. and my concern is we seem to be learning the same lessons, again and again he and again. madam secretary after the 1988 bombings of embassies trance kntrance-- tans nia, he sat where you are now, they were shocked how similar the listens were by those by the commission some 14 years before that. in other words, in 1985. and in direct response, i authored a bipartisan law, admiral made an act and in it the title to secure embassy construction and counterterrorism act of 1999 to upgrade diplomatic security, and residences, to improve threat assessments in facilities, emergency action

plans, security threat list, perimeter distances set back, for example, crisis management training, diplomatic security training, rapid response procedures, storage for emergency equipment like tire suppressant capabilities and increased anti-terrorism in africa. before 1998, there were a thousand security specialists, today there are over 3100. i agree we need more, but how present day security personnel and assets are deployed are above all a leadership issue and clearly we have and had the diplomatic security assets that could have been deployed to benghazi. when it comes to what you knew, madam secretary, and what were requests were made of you, and the department to beef up security in benghazi, there are disturbing parallels to kenya and tanzania. prior to east africa, terrorist bombings and u.s. ambassador to kenya, bushnell

repeatedly asked secretary madeleine albright for upgrades and the ambassador's request was rejected and the loss of life as we know were horrific. and u.s. ambassador to libya, chris stevens and his team made repeated requests for security assistance so my questions are one, you define taking responsibility for benghazi in your testimony a few moments ago. in terms-- and only in terms of during and after the terrorist attacks. what about before the attack on september 11th, 2012-- 11 -- 12. what did you personally, and your staff. when did you become aware of ambassador stevens request for security upgrade? what exactly did you do in response? you obviously were very close to him. did he ask you personally at any time. when you say a moment ago that ambassador pickering's arb perhaps didn't think relevant

to be interviewed. you're the most relevant person of all. you're the leader on top of it all. so, i would join with my colleague, you should have been interviewed and very important questions asked. and were you personally in any way at fault? >> well, first, congressman, i'll well aware of the work that you did after the 1998 bombings and i think that work and the legislation that you championed has been very important in protecting our people around the world. we have been, not only reviewing, but continuing to implement the recommendations of all the former arb's and the 18 previous arb's resulted in 164 recommendations and we have been very clear that the overwhelming majority have been implemented. a handful, such recommendations were by their very nature requiring continuous implement